A really good breakdown and review of At the Mountains of Madness! I read through it for the first time earlier this month (I have been on a mission to get through all of Lovecraft's work). I thought the first half was a mastercraft in building tension. It's a real slow burn of suspense. And I appreciated the realism of the expedition. It's also very easy to see where John Carpenter got his idea for The Thing from as well. The second half, however, I felt leaned too heavily in the descriptive style. It also breaks the show dont tell rule. The narrator spends chapter after chapter describing the architecture of the ancient city with a very limited vocabulary. The amount of times the word "decadent" is used is quite extraordinary. In a very non-Lovecraft way, he spends ages telling the reader all about this ancient society of the Old Ones rather than exploring the horror of the unknown. And we are supposed to believe that the narrator learned all this from some wall markings? All the horror was snuffed out when I learned all about this society and their customs for like three chapters straight. By the time some actual action happens, I was quite checked out! Reading your breakdown certainly gives it a fresh perspective. Might have to give this one another read...
Thank you Charlie for such a detailed reply to my article. I agree with all the points you flagged. Although I am not familiar with Lovecraft's other works, he does lean too much on descriptions. I have to say that the ending of At the Mountains of Madness is particularly scary as the ending leaves you with an ominous feeling that things will get worse off the page. It is definitely worth exploring. Thank you for reading my article. ☺️
I agree with the change in descriptive prose back in the day with modern day. My brain is wired with enough motion pictures to imagine the scene without much detailed sight descriptions. As such, I need more plot advancement than painting the scene with words to keep me invest in the story.
I think it's a different in the ways "theatre of the mind" is triggered between modern day and classic readers.
I am currently writing my book and I had to think a lot about how I wanted to write it. I decided to NOT write like a high professional scientist. I don't think that fits into my story and it would be very hard for my readers to follow the story.
Yes of course. I think you should always keep your audience in mind. Lovecraft's style was appropriate to his time and some people stile like to read it, but most moden readers prefer otherwise. Thanks for reading my article, and wish you all the best in your novel. 😊
Very interesting dissection of a classic; I had never thought of AtMoM as a scientific report, but of course it is. Lovecraft’s style is unique in that in spite of scads of imitators, nobody else has managed to pull it off. But then, lots and lots of writers take the wrong lessons from him anyway in terms of style and approach.
Love the diagnosis! And funnily enough, I just did a lesson on the animal phylum with a small detour on labs for mollusks. The lab report part seemed especially haunting as science creeps into life. It’s one of the reasons I love science fiction, how something’s seemingly far from life (the science and the theories) creeps in, and you turn around and see that they’ve been there the whole time, lying underneath all the daily normalities. And the part on Shoggoth, yeah, when you first mentioned it I was like, wait, isn’t that what we are kinda doing right now with AI? History repeats itself, and scientists/sci-fi writers are particularly good at recording those moments. Because, it’s so very human to want to create something to “serve” us, and alas, we all know where that route went down in history. For a civilizational culture steeped in mastery and servitude, where would our futures lie? Perhaps we can turn to science fiction for some projection on that.
Added to my list
😃
A really good breakdown and review of At the Mountains of Madness! I read through it for the first time earlier this month (I have been on a mission to get through all of Lovecraft's work). I thought the first half was a mastercraft in building tension. It's a real slow burn of suspense. And I appreciated the realism of the expedition. It's also very easy to see where John Carpenter got his idea for The Thing from as well. The second half, however, I felt leaned too heavily in the descriptive style. It also breaks the show dont tell rule. The narrator spends chapter after chapter describing the architecture of the ancient city with a very limited vocabulary. The amount of times the word "decadent" is used is quite extraordinary. In a very non-Lovecraft way, he spends ages telling the reader all about this ancient society of the Old Ones rather than exploring the horror of the unknown. And we are supposed to believe that the narrator learned all this from some wall markings? All the horror was snuffed out when I learned all about this society and their customs for like three chapters straight. By the time some actual action happens, I was quite checked out! Reading your breakdown certainly gives it a fresh perspective. Might have to give this one another read...
Thank you Charlie for such a detailed reply to my article. I agree with all the points you flagged. Although I am not familiar with Lovecraft's other works, he does lean too much on descriptions. I have to say that the ending of At the Mountains of Madness is particularly scary as the ending leaves you with an ominous feeling that things will get worse off the page. It is definitely worth exploring. Thank you for reading my article. ☺️
I agree with the change in descriptive prose back in the day with modern day. My brain is wired with enough motion pictures to imagine the scene without much detailed sight descriptions. As such, I need more plot advancement than painting the scene with words to keep me invest in the story.
I think it's a different in the ways "theatre of the mind" is triggered between modern day and classic readers.
Thank you for reading my article. And I totally agree. Very well said. ☺️
I am currently writing my book and I had to think a lot about how I wanted to write it. I decided to NOT write like a high professional scientist. I don't think that fits into my story and it would be very hard for my readers to follow the story.
Yes of course. I think you should always keep your audience in mind. Lovecraft's style was appropriate to his time and some people stile like to read it, but most moden readers prefer otherwise. Thanks for reading my article, and wish you all the best in your novel. 😊
I agree! Thank you!
Very interesting dissection of a classic; I had never thought of AtMoM as a scientific report, but of course it is. Lovecraft’s style is unique in that in spite of scads of imitators, nobody else has managed to pull it off. But then, lots and lots of writers take the wrong lessons from him anyway in terms of style and approach.
Love the diagnosis! And funnily enough, I just did a lesson on the animal phylum with a small detour on labs for mollusks. The lab report part seemed especially haunting as science creeps into life. It’s one of the reasons I love science fiction, how something’s seemingly far from life (the science and the theories) creeps in, and you turn around and see that they’ve been there the whole time, lying underneath all the daily normalities. And the part on Shoggoth, yeah, when you first mentioned it I was like, wait, isn’t that what we are kinda doing right now with AI? History repeats itself, and scientists/sci-fi writers are particularly good at recording those moments. Because, it’s so very human to want to create something to “serve” us, and alas, we all know where that route went down in history. For a civilizational culture steeped in mastery and servitude, where would our futures lie? Perhaps we can turn to science fiction for some projection on that.
Thank you for reading my article. And yes, I totally agree. Sometimes science fiction can predict the future.